The environment is the natural surroundings which help life to grow, nourish and destroy on this planet called earth. Natural environment plays a great role in the existence of life on earth and it helps human beings, animals and other living things to grow and develop naturally. But due to some bad and selfish activities of human beings, our environment is getting affected. It is the most important topic that everyone must know how to protect our environment to keep it safe forever as well as ensure the nature’s balance on this planet to continue the existence of life [i].

A clean environment is very necessary to live a peaceful and healthy life. But our environment is getting dirty day by day because of some negligence of human beings. It is an issue which everyone must know about. In order of that negligence of human beings, there is a law to punish the said human beings.

Environmental Law

Environmental law is also known as environmental and natural resources law. It is a collective term describing the group of treaties, statutes, regulations, common and customary laws addressing the effects of human activity on the natural environment. The core environmental law regimes address environmental pollution.

In the wake of the Bhopal gas tragedy, the Government of India enacted the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The laws that existed prior to the enactment of EPA essentially focused on specific pollution (such as air and water). The need for a single authority which could assume the lead role for environmental protection was answered through the enactment of EPA. It is in the form of umbrella legislation designed to provide a framework for the Central Government to coordinate the activities of various central and state authorities established under previous laws. It is also in the form of an enabling law, which delegates wide powers to the executive to enable bureaucrats to frame necessary rules and regulations [ii].

According to Section 2(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, Environment includes
a) Water, air, and land
b) The inter-relationship which exists among and between

# water, air, land, and
# human beings, other living creatures, plants, microorganisms, and property.

The act was passed with the following objectives:
1. To Improve the Quality of Environment:
Under this Act, the Central Government has the power to take all such measures as it deems necessary for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of environment.

2. Safe Limits:
The Act lays down standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources. Moreover, it restricts the areas in which any industry operations or processes or class of industries shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards only.

3. Handling of Hazardous Substances:
The Act was passed for the protection, regulation of the discharge of environmental pollutants and handling of hazardous substances.

4. Prevention of Accidents:
The Act lays down procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may cause environmental pollution and remedial measures for such accidents and deterrent punishment to those who endanger the human environment, safety and health[iii].

Environmental Torts

Tort law focuses on bad outcomes affecting persons (both human beings and corporations) and property. The term ‘property’ does not refer to the things, but to things that are subject to a legal regime. The earth’s atmosphere, for instance, is not subject to any legal property regime and so is not within the scope of tort law. Tort law comes onto the scene when something has gone wrong. So in cases of environment, the tort law will play a role when there is environmental damage. It is much more concerned with cure rather than prevention. It is concerned primarily with reparation and not punishment. It is one of the remedy for environmental pollution[iv].

Difference Between Environmental Law And Environmental Torts

# the key difference between environmental law and environmental torts is that regulation is perpetuated to protect general public health, while torts are brought in order to rectify damages caused to individual human beings.

# The difference between environmental law and environmental torts is in environmental law with respect to hazardous waste is that the burden of proof as to whether something caused something else is shifted. In torts, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the action caused damages [v].

Remedies Under Tort LA:
Tort law is based upon the principles “sic uteve two ut alininum non lex das” means so use your property as not harm others. Although tort law does not deal directly with pollution control still one can spell out rules of pollution control and successfully apply them from the principles evolved out of certain aspects of the law. Majority of environment pollution cases of tort in India fall under four major categories:
# Nuisance,
# Trespass,
# Negligence,
# Strict Liability.

Nuisance:
It means anything which annoys, hurts or that which is offensive. Under the common law principle, the nuisance is concerned with unlawful interference with the person’s right over whole of land or of some right over or in connection with it. But for an interference to be an ‘actionable nuisance’ the conduct of the defendant must be unreasonable.

Nuisance may be public or private in nature. Hence acts interfering with the comfort, health or safety are covered under nuisance. The interference may be due to smell, noise, fumes, gas, heat, smoke, germs, vibrations, etc. In the private nuisance, the basis of an action under nuisance is unreasonable and unnecessary inconvenience caused by the use of the defendant’s land.

A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public, otherwise an act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort, convenience, health, safety and quality of life of a class of persons. The activities include carrying of trades causing offensive smells, intolerable noises, dust, vibrations, collection of filth that affects the health or habitability in a locality.

Case Laws
1) St. Helen Smelting Co. vs Tipping [vi] :
In this case, the fumes from the defendant’s manufacturing work damaged plaintiff’s trees and shrubs. The Court held that such damages being an injury to property gave rise to a cause of action. In the case of damage to property, any sensible injury will be sufficient to support an action [vii].

2) Dilaware Ltd. vs Westminister City Council [viii]:
In this case, the respondent was the owner of a tree growing in the footpath of a highway. The roots of the tree caused cracks in the neighboring building. The transferee of the building, after the cracks were detected, was held entitled to recover reasonable remedial expenditure in respect of the entire damage from the continuing nuisance caused by the trees [ix].

3) Ram Baj Singh vs Babu Lal [x]:
In this case, A person built a brick grinding machine in front of the consulting chamber of a medical practitioner. The machine was generating a lot of dust and noise which polluted the atmosphere and entered the consulting chamber of the medical practitioner and caused physical inconvenience to him and his patients.

The Allahabad High Court held that this amounts to the private nuisance which can reasonably be said to cause injury, discomfort or annoyance to a person. Exposure of unwilling persons to dangerous and disastrous levels of noise amounts to noise pollution. It is also known as noise nuisance and thus it can be controlled under the law of torts. No citizen can exercise his fundamental freedom under the constitution in such a way that it creates a nuisance to others to become a health hazard activity [xi].

4) Free Legal Aid Cell vs Govt of NCT of Delhi [xii]:
In this case, the petition was filed on behalf of an association of public activists in public interest. The main grievance in this petition was that as a result of display of fireworks and use thereof during festivals and marriages, physical and mental health hazard is suffered by adults as well as children. It was also submitted that because of indiscriminate use of loudspeakers, noise pollution has become a routine affair affecting mental as well as physical health of citizens and it causes a nuisance.

The Delhi high court rightly observed that the effect of noise on the health is a matter, which has yet not received full attention of our judiciary, which it deserves. Pollution being wrongful contamination of the environment which causes material injury to the right of an individual, noise can well be regarded as a pollutant because it contaminates the environment , causes nuisance and effects health of a person if it exceeds a reasonable limit [xiii].

5) Lakshmipathy vs State [xiv]:
In this case, the petitioners were aggrieved by the location an operation of industries and industrial enterprises in a residential area in alleged gross violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Town And Country Planning Act, 1961. The petitioners were questioning the industrial activity in a residential locality by establishing and running factories, workshops, factory sheds, manufacture of greases and lubricating oils by distillation process and also the production of inflammable products by the respondents.

The Karnataka High Court directed such industries to be stopped and further held that earmarked residential area should not be used for such industries. The court also directed the authorities to remove all encroachments in public lands and roads in the area in question and to implement the order of the court within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The petitioners were also held entitled to costs Rs.3000/- from the respondents [xv].

6) Kuldeep Singh vs Subash Chandra Jain [xvi]:
In this case, the plaintiff feared that the baking oven and 12 feet chimney built by his neighbor would cause nuisance when the bakery commenced. The supreme court drew a distinction between an existing nuisance and a future nuisance. In case of a future nuisance, a mere possibility of injury will not provide the plaintiff with a cause of action unless the threat be so certain or imminent that an injury actionable in law will arise unless prevented by an injunction , the court may not require proof of absolute certainly but before the court may interfere, the plaintiff must show a strong case of probability that the apprehended mischief will in fact arise.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s apprehension about nuisance due to smoke from the bakery to be commenced was not justified by the pleadings or the evidence and accordingly the suit was dismissed [xvii] .

7) Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co. [xviii] :
In this case, an injunction was granted to prevent a gas company from manufacturing gas in such close proximity to the premises of the plaintiff, a market gardener, and in such a manner as to injure his garden produce by the escape of noxious matter [xix].

8) Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. [xx] :
In this case, the defendant’s depot dealt with fuel oil in its light from the chimneys projected from the boiler house, acid smuts containing sulphate was emitted and was visible falling outside the plaintiff’s house. There was proof that the smuts had damaged clothes hung out to dry in the garden of the plaintiff’s house and also paintwork of the plaintiff’s car which he kept on the highway outside the door of his house.
The depot emanated a pungent and nauseating smell of oil which went beyond a background smell and was more than would affect a sensitive person but the plaintiff had not suffered any injury in health from the smell.
During the night there was noise from the boilers which at its peak caused window and doors in the plaintiff’s house to vibrate and prevented the plaintiff’s sleeping. An action was brought by the plaintiff for nuisance by acid smuts, smell and noise. The defendants were held liable to the plaintiff in respect of emission of acid smuts, noise or smell [xxi].

Negligence
Negligence is another specific tort on which a common law action to prevent environmental pollution can be instituted. When there is a duty to take care and the same is not taken, which results in some harm to another person, it is amounted to negligence. In the action of negligence, the result is some kind of a loss, inconvenience or annoyance to another. The plaintiff must show
# The the defendant was under a duty to take reasonable care to avoid the damage complained
# Breach of the duty
# Consequential damage which must have been factually caused by the breach of duty and must be reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the breach.
The problem with cases of negligence is the difficulty in establishing casual the connection between the negligent act of one and injury to others. It is also very difficult and problematic to prove if the effect of the injury remains hidden for a long period.

Case Laws
1) Donoghue vs Stevenson [xxii] :
In this case, Mrs. Donghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer and ice cream. The ginger beer came in a dark bottle, and the contents were not visible from the outside. Donghue drank some of the contents and her friend lifted the bottle top pour the remainder of the ginger beer into the tumbler. The remains of a snail in a state of decomposition dropped out of the bottle into the tumbler. As a result of the remain, Donoghue suffered from nervous shock and gastroenteritis. Donoghue attempted to claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer (Stevenson) claimed that he owed her a duty of care.

Court held the case in favor of Donoghue, a duty can be owed to the ultimate consumer. The reasoning given as per Lord Atkin is The degree of care varies from case to case. Generally, the causal relationship must be shown by the plaintiff between the negligence of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff [xxiii].

2) Nichols v. Marsland [xxiv]:
In this case, The defendant had a series of artificial lakes on his land in the construction or maintenance of which there had been no negligence. Owing to exceptionally heavy rain, some of the reservoirs burst and carried away four country bridges. It was held that the defendant was not liable as the water escaped by the act of God [xxv].

3) Naresh Dutt Tyagi vs State of UP [xxvi]:
In this case, Chemical pesticides were stored in go down in a residential area. fumes emanating from the pesticides leaked to the contiguous property through ventilators which resulted in the death of 3 children and an infant in the womb of the mother. It was held that it was a clear case of negligence [xxvii].

4) Mukesh Textile Mills vs Subramanya Sastri [xxviii]:
In this case, the court applied common law action for negligence to prevent activity causing environmental pollution. The facts of this case were that the appellant had a sugar factory and used to store molasses, a by-product in the manufacturing of sugar, in tanks which were close to the respondent’s land and separated by a water channel. One day, one of the tanks collapsed. It emptied into the water channel and ultimately spoiled the paddy fields of the respondent causing damage to the raised crop. The court held the appellant liable on two grounds. Firstly, the appellant who had stored a large quantity of molasses in tanks had the duty to take reasonable care in the matter of maintenance. If the duty to take care was not properly performed, then it amounted to negligence on the part of the appellant. The court further pointed out that the appellant could reasonably foresee the damage, which was likely to be caused if there was a breach in the tank. Secondly, liability arises whenever the land is put to the non-natural use. Thus, the court held that the appellant was liable for the consequences of the escape of the fluid its tank [xxix].

5) B. Venkatappa vs B. Lovis [xxx]:
In this case, the Andhra Pradesh high court while upholding the lower court’s mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the holes in a chimney facing the plaintiff ‘s property observed that the smoke and fumes that materially interfered with ordinary comfort was enough to constitute an actionable nuisance and that actual injury to health need not be proved. The fact that the nuisance existed long before the complainant occupied his premises, does not relieve the offender unless he can show that as against the complainant he had acquired a right to commit nuisance complained of [xxxi].

6) Wu Siew Ying vs Gunung Tunggal Quarry and Construction SDN BHD [xxxii]:
In this case, the first the defendant operated a quarry on a limestone hill situated on land adjacent to the plaintiff’s plant nursery. The second defendant was the registered owner of the quarry which he had leased to the first defendant . on a day, following a severe thunderstorm, a large slice of the hill collapsed. Limestone rock debris fell on to the plaintiff’s land and virtually destroyed his nursery. The collapse occurred at a time when the first defendant had shut down quarrying operations for the new year holidays. The plaintiff filed an action against the defendants for negligence and nuisance. The plaintiff contended that the collapse was due to the quarrying activities of the defendant . Having pursued the evidence the apex court was of the view that though the 1st defendant had used a minimal amount of explosive for blasting and adopted certain safety blasting method nevertheless had neglected to ensure that the resultant strength of the ground was adequate to prevent the collapse of the eastern duct of the hill and to take reasonable steps to remove hazards on the hill when he was aware of them. The blasting operation carried out by the 1st defendant had caused vibration and though this is one of the causes for the rock fall it is a significant contribution to the collapse of the eastern duct of the hill. On these grounds, the 1st defendant was liable to the plaintiff for negligence [xxxiii].

7) Municipal Board, Jaunpur vs Brahm Kishor [xxxiv]:
In this case, the defendants ( Municipal Authorities ) had dug a ditch on a public road for repairs. The plaintiff who was going on a cycle in the evening to his quarters from the club did not see the ditch in the darkness, and fell into it and was injured. The municipal authorities had not given any public notice about this, and not provided light, danger signal, caution notice or barricade, etc. to prevent such accidents. The court said that the fact that the cyclist did not have any light fixed in front of the cycle need not make any difference because the light of the kerosene lamp which is used by the cyclist generally could not still make the ditch visible. The court held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the defendants ( Municipal Authorities ) and therefore they were liable. It was their duty to give proper notice and provide light to the passerby on the road which they did not comply.

8) Ramdas And Sons vs Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Singh [xxxv]:
In this case, the defendants were contractors who had undertaken to lay water pipeline and for that purpose, they made trenches in front of a govt hospital. The trench was left open and it was not barricaded nor red light was installed to give warning to the passerby about its danger. At 8 pm in the night when the plaintiff who was going to the hospital fell into the trench and got serious injuries. The facts disclosed that the trench was in front of the main gate of the hospital. The road to the hospital was a thoroughfare wherefrom the people used to pass day and night. Moreover, there was complete darkness on the road as blackout was being observed those days on account of Indo Pakistan war. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages. It was held that the defendants were liable as they failed to observe the due care of providing the fence around the trench and also did not provide any red light there[xxxvi] .

Trespass:
It means an intentional invasion of the interests of the plaintiff over the property in his exclusive possession. The invasion may be direct or through some tangible object. Two things are necessary to prove for constituting the tort of trespass.
# Intentional interference
# Such interference must be direct rather than consequential.

It differs from the nuisance in that, trespass is actionable per se whereas nuisance is actionable in the proof of damage. In the environment related problems tort of trespass constitutes a deliberate placement of waste in such circumstances as it will be carried to the land of plaintiff by natural forces. It may be gases or even invisible fumes.

The primary remedies for these environmental torts are claiming for unliquidated damages and injunction or both. Damages are compensation payable for the commission of a tort. These damages may be nominal, substantial or exemplary. Where it is not an appropriate remedy and the prevention of tortuous act is essential, the remedy of an injunction with or without damages may be granted. An injunction is a judicial process where a person who has infringed or is about to infringe the rights of another, is restrained from pursuing such acts. Injunctions are of two kinds, temporary or perpetual.

Illustration
An example of trespass in an environmental situation might be if a person deliberately sprays pesticides or dumps waste on your property. However, a trespass action will not be successful unless the interference was deliberate. For example, if pesticides being used on your neighbor’s property accidentally blow onto your land, it is unlikely that this would constitute trespass. This means that, in practice, actions in trespass are seldom used to address environmental damage.

Case Laws
1) Sammons vs Gloversville [xxxvii] :
In this case , a very polluted Cayadutta Creek flowed through Sampson Sammons’ New York farm. Upstream, the city of Gloversville emptied its sewers and drains into the creek, fouling its waters and depositing filth on its beds and along its banks. So, too, did the city of Johnstown, along with several tanneries. Mr. Sammons went to court to restrain Gloversville from further polluting the creek or its banks. The trial court found that the city’s sewage disposal practices amounted to a continuing trespass that substantially injured Mr. Sammons’ property rights. It issued an injunction, to take effect after one year, prohibiting Gloversville from fouling Mr. Sammons premises by discharging its sewage into the creek. The court retained the right to extend the injunction if it took longer than a year for the city to establish a different sewage system or to obtain legislative relief. Both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. As the trial judge explained, it was uniform practice in New York to enjoin trespass, regardless of the public necessity of the offending works or the great inconvenience that could result from their restraint [xxxviii].

2) Friesen vs Forest Protection Ltd [xxxix]:
In this case , Abram Friesen, a professor at the University of New Brunswick, lived with his wife and four children on a farm in Island View, just west of Fredericton, New Brunswick. In the evening Dr. and Mrs. Friesen were picking fiddleheads near a brook on their farm when planes flew directly overhead, emitting a cloud of spray that descended on them, burning their cheeks, causing their eyes to water, and making them cough.

The Friesens, organic farmers who shunned pesticides, were furious. They knew that as part of New Brunswick’s spruce budworm control program, Forest Protection Limited was spraying a pesticide formulation containing fenitrothion – a highly toxic organophosphate. Just one week earlier, Dr. Friesen had asked the company not to spray his property.

During the following weeks Dr. and Mrs. Friesen experienced a variety of physical ailments, which they attributed to fenitrothion poisoning. Their 12-year-old the son suffered a protracted asthmatic attack, which the Friesens blamed on inhalation of drifting spray. The spraying company, in contrast, called the boy’s attack a response to the emotional distress suffered by his parents; similarly, it judged the adults’ symptoms psychosomatic. The Friesens also found several hundred dead bees near their hives, and lost two cows, a pony, and two sheep; no evidence, however, linked these deaths to the spraying.
The Friesens sued Forest Protection Limited for damages under trespass and nuisance. The court held that it is unlawful to spray pesticides onto another’s land and awarded them $1,328.20 plus taxed costs [xl].

Strict Liability
The person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

The liability under this rule is strict and it is not the defense that the thing escape without that persons willful act, default or negligence or that he had no knowledge of its existence [xli].
The doctrine of strict liability is also known as the rule of no-fault liability as it considers liability without fault on the part of the defendant and particularly this aspect of the doctrine has significant relevance in the matters related to environmental pollution. it is related to variety of things like fire, gas, explosions, electricity, oil, noxious fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation etc. this rule is equally applies to the injuries caused to person and property.

Case Laws
1) Ryland vs Fletcher [xlii]:
In this case , Ryland and Fletcher were neighbors. Fletcher was running a coal mine on lease. Ryland desired to construct a water reservoir on his land for storing water. R gave this job to an independent contractor. While working on the water reservoir, the workmen belonging to the independent contractor came across some old disused shafts. The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. When water was filled in the reservoir, those improperly packed old disused shafts succumbed to the pressure and water percolated through to the coal mine and Fletcher could not carry any work, thus suffered losses. He went to the court for redressal.

Blackburn J said that this rule provides that a person who for his own purpose brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and , if he fails to do so , is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequences of its escape. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defense that the things escaped without that person’s willful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence . This rule laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the damages caused.

The doctrine of strict liability is also known as rule of no-fault liability as it considers liability without fault on the part of the defendant and particularly this aspect of the doctrine has significant relevance in the matters related to environmental pollution. In order to have the applicability of this rule, two conditions must be satisfied . Firstly, there must be non-natural use of the land. Secondly , there must be escape from the land of something which is likely to cause some harm or mischief if it escapes [xliii].

2) Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. vs. Hydraulic Power Co. [xliv]:
In this case, the defendants’ duty was to supply water for industrial works but they were unable to keep their mains charged with the minimum required pressure which led to the bursting of the pipeline at four different places resulting in heavy damage to the plaintiff which was proved with evidence. The defendants’ were held liable in spite of no fault of theirs [xlv].

3) M.C. Mehta vs UOI [xlvi]:
In this case, Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, was engaged in the manufacture of the dangerous chemical. On December 1985, large amounts of oleum gas leaked from one of the units in the heart of Delhi which resulted in the death of several persons. The leakage, resulted from the bursting of a tank containing oleum gas, was caused by mechanical and human errors. It created a scare among the people residing nearby and within two days, another leakage, a minor one, broke out as a result of oleum gas escaping from the joints of a pipe.

On 6th December 1985, the District Magistrate, Delhi ordered Shriram to stop the manufacturing and processing of hazardous chemicals and fertilizers at their establishment in Delhi and to remove such chemicals and gases from Delhi. At this particular point, M.C. Mehta moved to Supreme Court to file PIL and claim for compensation for the losses caused and also demanded that the closed establishment should not restart.
The Supreme Court held that Shriram is required to obtain a license under the Factories Act and is subject to the directions and orders of the authorities under the Act. It is also required to obtain a license for its manufacturing activities from the Municipal authorities under the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957. It is subject to extensive environment regulation under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and as the factory is situated in an air pollution control area, it is also subject to the regulation of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is true that control is not exercised by the Government in relation to the internal management policies of the Company[xlvii].

4) Cambridge Water Co. vs. Eastern Counties Leather [xlviii]:
In this case , The defendants had a tannery in operation at Shawston near Cambridge. They used perchloroethane (PCE) for degreasing the pelts essential for the tanning process. Till 1976, the PCE was delivered to the defendant’s tannery in drums which lead to regular spillage of the PCE in limited amount. Over the next few years, this spillage amounted to one thousand gallons. The PCE was soaked by the concrete floor and got dissolved in the underground water. This contaminated water used to flow to the plaintiff’s bore hole at his mill about 1.3 miles away from the defendant’s tannery. Due to this, the plaintiff sued the defendant and wanted charges of strict liability to apply on him. But the court’s verdict was in the favour of the defendant. The court upheld that for strict liability to apply, the defendant must be aware that the thing kept on his land will cause damage or ‘mischief’ to the plaintiff’s land on its escape, this is an essential element. However, in this case, it could never be comprehended or foreseen by any reasonable supervisor at the tannery that spillage of PCE at the tannery would damage the water at a distance of 1.3 miles away and would lead to an environmental hazard. It could not be imagined that the PCE would dissolve in the underground water by getting soaked through the ‘concrete floor’. The defendant was not aware that such a kind of damage could be caused by the PCE that he brought to use in his tannery. Therefore, the rule of Strict Liability is not applicable here [xlix].

5) Smt Selvi vs State of Tamilnadu[l]:
In this case , a child died after falling into the sewage line left open due to the improper maintenance of the manhole by metro water supply and sewerage board. Board was held liable to pay compensation for the death of child.

6) J.C. Galstaun vs. Dunia Lal Seal [li] :
In this case , The Calcutta High Court in 1905 is an important case of nuisance. In this case, the plaintiff complained that the defendant neighboring factory is discharging the refuse-liquid of his manufactory into a Municipal drain that passes along the plaintiff‟s garden. He alleged that the liquid is foul-smelling and noxious to the health of the neighbourhood and specially himself, and, secondly, that it has damaged him in health, comfort, market value of his garden property. The defendant admitting of foul-smelling of his liquid waste but denied that it was noxious or that it had injuriously affected the plaintiff‟s property. He said that his factory has been licensed by the government and has been conducting the manufacturing in a lawful manner. Consequently, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, granted a perpetual injunction and awarded the plaintiff a thousand rupees as damage [lii].

Conclusion
The powers vested to the Pollution Control Boards are not enough to prevent pollution. The Boards do not have power to punish the violators but can launch prosecution against them in the Courts which ultimately defeat the purpose and object of the Environmental Laws due to long delays in deciding the cases. Thus, it is imperatively necessary to give more powers to the Boards. If mere enactment of the law relating to the protection of the environment was to ensure a clean and pollution-free environment then India would, perhaps, be the least polluted country in the world. Along with environmental law, there are remedies for environment problems under the law of torts.

Despite existence of environmental policy, the constitutional mandate of environment protection, a flurry of legislation and administrative infrastructure of implementation, the problem of environmental pollution still remains a great cause of concern in our country. The future must be seen as a great challenge to be overcome by society as a whole, by evolving new means and mechanisms in tackling complex problems arising out of rapid Industrial advancement. The new means and mechanisms will introduce the greatest possible transparency and accountability in the functioning of the Government and modes and measures of enforcing laws effectively in dealing with offences against the environment which is the greatest wealth shared by all citizens.

Bibliography
Books Referred
1. Dr. Paramjit S. Jaswal , Dr. Nishtha Jaswal, Vibhuti Jaswal , Environmental Law
2. Dr. J. N. Pandey, Law Of Torts With Consumer Protection Act And Motor Vehicles Act

End-Notes
[vi] (1865) 77 HCL 642
[vii] www.scconline.com
[viii] (2001) 4 All ER 737 (HL)
[ix] www.scconline.com
[x] AIR 1982 All. 285
[xi] DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 22
[xii] AIR 2001 Del 455
[xiii] DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 22-Pg 23
[xiv] AIR 1992 Kant 57
[xv] DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 23
[xvi] AIR 2000 SC 1410
[xvii] DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 24
[xviii] (1856) 7 De GM & G 436
[xix] www.scconline.com
[xx] (1961) 2 All ER 145
[xxi] www.scconline.com
[xxii] (1932) AC 562
[xxiii] www.scconline.com
[xxiv] (1875) LR 10 Ex.255
[xxv] www.scconline.com
[xxvi] 1995 Supp (3) SCC 144
[xxvii] DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 25
[xxviii] AIR 1987 Kant 87
[xxix] DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 25
[xxx] AIR 1986 AP 239
[xxxi] DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 25
[xxxii] (2012) 1 SCC (FJ) 1
[xxxiii] www.scconline.com
[xxxiv] AIR 1978 All 168
[xxxv] AIR 1973 Pat 294
[xxxvi] www.scconline.com
[xxxvii] 74 N.Y. Supp. 1145
[xxxviii] www.scconline.com
[xxxix] (1978), 22 N.B.R. (2d) 146 (Q.B.).
[xl] www.scconline.com
[xli] www.legalservicesindia.com
[xlii] (1968) LR3HC 330
[xliii]DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL, VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 26
[xliv] (1914) 3 KB 772
[xlv] www.scconline.com
[xlvi] AIR 1987 SC 1086
[xlvii]DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL, DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 26 – Pg 27
[xlviii] (1994) 1 ALL ER 53
[xlix] www.scconline.com
[l] AIR 2010 (NOC) 255 (Mad.).
[li] (1905) 9 CWN 612
[lii] DR.PARAMJIT S. JASWAL , DR. NISHTHA JASWAL , VIBHUTI JASWAL, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – Pg 29 – Pg 30